On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:
> I like "identified", although, I have to admit that my English knowledge
> doesn't give me only vague distinction between "know" and "identify."
>
> There's a sentence in the content language Terminology[1]:
> Note that it is possible for the content language of an element to be
> unknown.
>
> Should this also be:
> Note that it is possible for the content language of an element could
> not be identified.
>
fantasai's suggested change is sufficient;
i would suggest leaving the current definition alone in the content
language definition; e.g., what does "unknown" mean:
- unknown to author; e.g., author is speaking in tongues [but can
transcribe it!]
- known to author, but no "identification" specified, e.g., author
writes in Japanese, but doesn't add 'ja' locale, etc.
- known to author, and no "identification" specified, but known
(recognizable) to reader/decoder in absence of identification, e.g., author
writes in Japanese, fails to specify language identity, but reader
recognizes and "knows" language
- known to author, and no "identification" specified, but unknown
(recognizable) to reader/decoder, e.g., author writes in Japanese, fails to
specify language identity, but reader can't read Japanese and has no clue
of language
- known to author, and "identification" specified, but unknown
(recognizable) to reader/decoder, e.g., author writes in Japanese, does
specify language identity, but reader can't read Japanese (even though the
language is identified and thus the reader may have a hint in order to hire
a translator)
trying to be more specific here may lead down a bit of a slipper slope